Question (science related)

For a fire to start you need Heat(ignition), Air(Oxygen), Fuel )flammable material). A fire cannot start without all 3.

It makes little difference what temp the water is at so long as it remains in liquid form. The aim of the 'extinguisher' is to eliminate any one of the above 3 sources without which a fire cannot continue.
 
Could you put out a fire with a stream of water in gaseous form - that is like the invisible bit of what come out of a kettle before it starts to condense into steam.

This would be a bit like a CO2 extinguisher using gaseous (hot) H20 instead of CO2.

I only ask because it would remove the temperature element from the question just leaving the issue of smothering (O2 deprivation) the seat of the fire to put it out.
 
CrazySpeaker said:
Ermm.. What has that got to do with needing a degree (or even being "sciencey") to work out what temperature water is best suited to extinguishing a fire?
Click to expand...

You seem to have arrived at a simplistic solution to the question not needing much theory or scientific experiment to verify it. You might be right. Or not.

Although this form of (un) scientific methodology suited the greeks who didn't like to get their hands dirty, modern science is based on theorising then TESTING. I am sure there is a lot more going on when water is chucked on a fire than this thread has covered.
 
EffBee said:
You seem to have arrived at a simplistic solution to the question not needing much theory or scientific experiment to verify it. You might be right. Or not.

Although this form of (un) scientific methodology suited the greeks who didn't like to get their hands dirty, modern science is based on theorising then TESTING. I am sure there is a lot more going on when water is chucked on a fire than this thread has covered.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

I haven't even arrived at an ultimate solution. Obviously it's going to be more complicated, and it will eventually come down to particle physics, which to understand fully and properly would require a degree. But you don't need to understand that just to understand which would be best for the job.
 
CrazySpeaker said:
What are you talking about?

I haven't even arrived at an ultimate solution. Obviously it's going to be more complicated, and it will eventually come down to particle physics, which to understand fully and properly would require a degree. But you don't need to understand that just to understand which would be best for the job.
Click to expand...

Well no, if someone tells you what is best and explains why you just need to be an intelligent layman. To work which is best and prove it you need a formal scientific education.
 
EffBee said:
Well no, if someone tells you what is best and explains why you just need to be an intelligent layman. To work which is best and prove it you need a formal scientific education.
Click to expand...

He's not asking for emprical proof, that bit has already been done. He just asked for an explanation. Stop trying to be clever. Also you don't need a formal education just to get a conclusion from an experiment. But you just stand a much greater chance of making your conclusion relevent to current science if you do.
 
Le_Petit_Lapin said:
Does anyone know of a link to any videos of liquid nitrogen being sprayed on a fire? Am curious as to what that would be like.
Click to expand...

It would vapourise before it hit the fire and prove useless.

You can get videos of people throwing it at crowds and stuff and it all just turns to gas.

Will try and find the video.

KaHn
 
It has nothing o do with the temperature of the water. The water starves the fire of oxygen and puts it out. It is just a matter of how much water.

I worry sometimes about the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom